The Southland Times reports:

Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt will seek a record eighth consecutive term as mayor, but he may have some competition from current councillors.

Councillors Ian Pottinger and Karen Arnold have refused to rule out mounting a challenge, but SIT chief executive Penny Simmonds shot down rumours that she had her eye on the city’s top job.

Pottinger said he gave it some thought over the weekend. 

“It’s definitely not a no, and it’s definitely not a yes. In fact, I was talking about it in the weekend.” 

Candidates should act early, Pottinger said. 

“We’ve really got to start thinking this now. If you’re going to do it, you’ve got to do it now.

“Our options are open.” 

Most local body elections are about name recognition so incumbents tend to be re-elected unless they do something poorly, or get on the wrong side of a key issue. So Shadbolt will be difficult to beat.

Stuff reports:

Construction company Fletcher Construction will build SkyCity’s International Convention Centre and hotel in Auckland.

SkyCity chief executive Nigel Morrison announced the $477 million contract with the Fletcher to build and complete the design of the 32,000 square metre convention centre, the five-star 300-room hotel on Hobson St, a retail laneway linking Nelson and Hobson streets and 1327 carparks underneath the convention centre.

The projects would create an estimated 1000 jobs during the 38-month build, plus about 1140 jobs once the convention centre and hotel opened for business.

With the tender won, the next stage should be construction.

Having just been to a conference in Dublin held at a dedicated convention centre, you appreciate the difference between a dedicated conference centre and a hotel that say has some meeting rooms. The conference in Dublin had around 2,400 people attending and could never be held in New Zealand without an international level conference centre.

Stuff reports:

A Waikato family has used hormones to deliberately stunt the growth of their disabled daughter and keep her child-sized forever.

At 10 years old, Charley Hooper cannot walk or talk, and will remain 1.3m tall, and 24kgs for the rest of her life.

Charley is severely disabled – she has very poor vision, her limbs are uncontrollable and her floppy head needs supporting, her brain is believed to function at the level of a newborn’s.

Parents Jenn and Mark Hooper feared as she grew bigger with age, they would no longer be able to take her places and needed a solution.

They stumbled upon the controversial treatment of giving her hormones to stunt her growth.

Denied ethical clearance to begin the treatment in New Zealand, the couple journeyed to South Korea where the hormones were administered.

They were then able to continue the treatment at home.

Jenn Hooper considers her daughter so severely disabled, she is “unabled” and reasoned that she would never be able to give consent to have sex, let alone get pregnant, so a hysterectomy was undertaken.

“We haven’t stopped her doing anything. Growing would have stopped her doing things,” Jenn said.

“We didn’t take away any choices that weren’t already taken from her.” 

Without the ability to speak, or give consent, they have always had to imagine what their daughter would want, Jenn said.

They try to judge Charley’s feelings, moods and physical needs through her moans. The volume and pitch, as well as whether her face is relaxed or contorted from intense muscle contractions is her way of expressing herself.

On hormone treatment, it took 4 years for Charley to stop growing. Within days after the treatment, Charleys seizures stopped, and her stiff uncontrollable limbs became more pliable. Doctors hypothesise that it could be from estrogen, which can change neurological activity and relax muscles.

There an be few things tougher in the world than being the parents of such a severely disabled child. I think one can have theoretical debates about what is best in such a situation, but the parents are the ones best suited to decide, if the child can not.

Stuff reports:

Wellington City Council is sticking to its guns on the living wage – a move that could cost it an extra $2.4 million and expose it to costly legal action.

The council, which has been paying its own staff a living wage since 2013, took the bold step on Wednesday of requiring contractors who provide its security services to do the same.

In doing so, it flew in the face of warnings from its own officers and chief executive Kevin Lavery that it would effectively be paying $2.4m, or 19 per cent, more than the going rate for guarding, noise control and cash collection services over the seven-year life of the security contract without seeing any extra benefit.

This is nuts. They’ve basically forcing ratepayers to fund their social engineering where an Anglican priest in the Hutt decides how much security contractors should be paid.

Lavery did not mince words at Wednesday’s council meeting.

He told councillors they were asking him to implement something the council’s lawyers felt was illegal, as the Local Government Act prohibits councils from paying more than they need too for services without any corresponding benefit.

There was a very real risk the council could be taken to court, and could lose, he said.

So the Councillors ignored the legal advice, because hey if they get taken to court they won’t have to pay – ratepayers will.

I hope the Chamber of Commerce does take the Council to court and seek a ruling they have acted illegally.

HOW THEY VOTED

For: Celia Wade-Brown, Justin Lester, Sarah Free, Iona Pannett, Helene Ritchie, Ray Ahipene-Mercer, David Lee, Paul Eagle, Mark Peck.

Against: Andy Foster, Jo Coughlan, Simon Woolf, Simon Marsh, Nicola Young, Malcolm Sparrow.

Remember the for names when you get your rates bill.

Vernon Small writes:

The recent One News poll put National on 47 per cent but all its formal support parties were on life support.

On the other side of the fence Labour and the Greens combined got over 40 per cent but NZ First, with its 9 per cent backing, sat firmly on the fulcrum of power.

It also puts Peters within cooee of his long nurtured aim of out-polling the Greens. It is a possibility that understandably makes the Greens nervous.

That would, the theory goes, make it easier for him to insist on a Labour-NZ First Government forcing the Greens to support it from the cross benches.

I think Peters will insist the Greens are left out of Cabinet (at least), even if they poll more than NZ First. If he polls higher than them, then it is probably a certainty. As the Greens have effectively ruled out ever doing a deal with National, then they have no bargaining power with Labour, while Peters has it all.

Many expect Peters to opt for the simplicity of a two-way deal with National if he does hold the balance of power. But if he can out-poll the Greens in 2017 it arguably makes a centre-Left Government more likely. It would stick in Peters’ craw to play third fiddle in any political orchestra.

Yep. He doesn’t want the Greens (or before that the Alliance in 1996) being able to veto stuff he agrees with the major party in Government.

The wild card is the succession – and whether former Labour MP Shane Jones will be in the mix come 2017. 

There have been repeated suggestions Jones could take the reins from Peters after his term as the Government’s economic ambassador ends in May 2017.

He would also be a natural successor to Peters in the Northland seat, which is Jones’ power base too. 

But Peters is now expected to stay on and contest the 2017 election – and even the next in 2020.

So Peters in 2023 when he may retire will be 78. I think it is fair to say he aims to emulate his mentor Muldoon and stay in Parliament until he physically can’t cope.

Shane Jones is 56. Will he want to re-enter Parliament when he is 58 just as deputy leader with a possibility of becoming leader around the time he is 63 or 64?

Stuff reports:

A man who ran over his wife in his truck and killed her has admitted meeting another woman through a dating website two weeks later.

This makes me almost physically sick. You have to have something seriously wrong with you to be able to do this.

Stuff reports:

A decision to deny an Iraqi-born New Zealand woman a job in the New Zealand Defence Force because of her birthplace has been slammed as stupid and prejudiced.

Warda Jawad, a 25-year-old psychology masters student whose family fled to New Zealand in the wake of the Gulf War when she was three, said she burst into tears after hearing the reason for her rejection.

Jawad told Radio NZ she applied for a job as an army psychologist after listening to a presentation from recruiters, and was initially told she appeared to be “the right candidate for the job”.

However, after a four-month application process, she was told she would not receive a security clearance due to her birthplace, as well as a 19-month period spent studying medicine in Oman.

“[The recruiter] said, ‘Hey look, the news isn’t good, basically your application has been rejected, given your place of birth and being away for extended periods of time from New Zealand, you weren’t able to pass a security clearance’.”

That was a pretty appalling decision. You treat people as individuals and don’t judge them off stuff they have no control over, such as where they were born.

One of my best friends was also born in Iraq, and her family left she she was very young.  I’d be furious if this had happened to her, and I can only imagine how upsetting it is for Ms Jawad.

Again you should treat people as individuals. If an applicant has beliefs or behaviour or even associates that could make them a security risk, then that is okay to decline them for a security job. But if someone has lived here since they were three years old, and you refuse them purely because of where they were born, then that’s nuts.

Labour defence spokesman Phil Goff said the NZDF had shown a narrow and conservative mindset, and had been unreasonably prejudiced against Jawad based on her birthplace.

“It is a stupid decision, it lacks any sound rationale, and they may have burnt off a person who could have been incredibly useful to them.

“There are not that many people around that are motivated to join the Defence Force and are capable of making the sort of contribution she could.”

Goff said Jawad’s fluency in Arabic, understanding of Middle Eastern culture and ability to talk with Muslim women would all be assets to New Zealand’s military operations.

“We lack in New Zealand people with those very sort of skills…we give people a few weeks’ training in the local culture and a few simple words in the local language, but those sort of skills would be so valuable to the Defence Force.”

I agree with Phil Goff on this.

NZDF have changed their decision, but the damage is already done.

Ms Jawad facebooked her feelings a couple of weeks ago:

Earlier this year I applied for a Psychologist role with the New Zealand Defence Force, a role I had my heart set on for a long time. As I had met all of the criteria for the position, my application proceeded and I met the medical requirements and began training for the NZDF fitness test that I would shortly need to pass. I was told, I only needed security clearance to progress further and become shortlisted. 3 months later, I was told I wasn’t eligible to pass security clearance and on that basis my application was rejected. Why? I was told “Given your place of birth, and being away from NZ for extended periods of time [a 9 month and 10 month period], you are not able to progress through security clearance”. …

Having been 18 years in NZ, completed all of my education here and completing a Masters degree, contributed to the community with various volunteer work that put me in risky and dangerous situations, and a completely clean slate, I am deemed to be a threat to national security because of where I was born. Serving in the Defence Force isn’t just an ordinary job, and I think we all know what sort of sacrifice is present. I willingly chose to put my life at risk and sacrifice many things, to serve New Zealand because here is what I have called home for a long time. Yet, the only thing that has been taken into consideration, is my ethnicity. Heartbroken, disappointed, confused, amongst other awful feelings. Time to turn the page and look ahead for what tomorrow has to bring. Thanks for reading friends 

Very very sad – someone who really wanted to contribute, and got turned down because of where she was born and lived for three years.

I have no doubt that some people will claim that anyone born in a Muslim country could be an extremist, and hence NZDF were right. That’s crap. As I said, one of my best friends was born in Iraq. She is the most Kiwi person I know. She is also Iraqi and also a Muslim. These things are not contradictory.

Chris Trotter writes:

It’s one of those pictures that freeze-frames a political leader in the making. Half-turned from the enthusiastic crowd of Prince Edward Islanders he is addressing, Justin Trudeau’s upraised arm acknowledges something beyond the image’s point of reference. A pale sunlight lightly gilds the palm of his outstretched hand and highlights the features of his face. Taken in 2013, Canadian Press photographer Andrew Vaughan’s photograph captures to perfection the same political magic that swept the 43-year-old Trudeau to victory in last Monday’s Canadian general election.

Inevitably, those New Zealanders favouring a change of government in 2017 are scouring the ranks of opposition parties for a Kiwi politician capable of bringing some Trudeau magic to our own political arena.

Labour supporters, in particular, are looking at the rather dour figure of Andrew Little and wondering whether he has what it takes to unseat a Prime Minister as popular as John Key.

So who does Trotter think may be the equivalent? He says it is not Grant?

In the end, however, most of the speculation about whether a Justin Trudeau is lurking, unrecognised, in the Opposition’s ranks circles back to the Labour Party. If Little is too dour and grumpy to beat the man Bill English once described as “bouncing from cloud to cloud”, who is left to bounce Labour’s banner up there alongside him?

Grant Robertson would probably say Grant Robertson. (And, to be fair, there are many in the Labour Party who would agree). But, to the rest of New Zealand, Robertson can come across as just a bit too complacent; a bit too absolutely, arrogantly, Wellington. For the best part of a year, he’s had plenty of chances to shine as Labour’s finance spokesperson. That his light has barely flickered in that role must count heavily against him.

I was listening to RNZ’s The Week in Politics today while running. It was on the budget surplus. What struck me was that Julie-Anne Genter came across as far more reasoned and logical on the economy, than Grant. He was still arguing that somehow the seven years of deficits were caused by National while also attacking National for not spending more. It was very weak, while Genter actually made quite reasonable arguments.

Which leaves just two names for Trudeau-seekers to play with: Stuart Nash and Jacinda Ardern. Both are well endowed with the skin-deep trappings of the Trudeauesque politician: youth and good looks. Nash even boasts a famous Labour name – although, the number of people who recall New Zealand once having had a Prime Minister called Walter Nash will not be large. Ardern, herself, is already registering in the preferred Prime Minister stakes – always a sign of better things to come. The positives are definitely there for both MPs.

Imagine then as leader and deputy? Nash could never win the leadership vote with the unions having 20%, but deputy leader is appointed by caucus only. I don’t think it will happen before 2017, but if they lose in 2017, it could happen.

The Herald reports:

The Reserve Bank says it has issued a formal warning to state-owned Kiwibank for failing to comply with sections of the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act.

In a statement, the Reserve Bank said it had “reasonable grounds” to believe that for various periods of time between June 30 2013, and June 2014, that Kiwibank did not fully meet all the requirements in respect to the following customer due diligence obligations under the act. …

The Reserve Bank said Kiwibank had not collected addresses of customers performing occasional transactions, as required by the act.

It also said Kiwibank did not always take reasonable steps to verify information relating to the source of funds or the wealth of the customer and did not consider terminating customers’ accounts in response to its ongoing non-compliance.

This is pretty serious stuff. I can’t recall the last time a major bank was formally censured by the Reserve Bank.

The Herald reports:

Oxford University scientists have created a series of body maps that show just where we are comfortable to be touched. …

It also showed – again, unsurprisingly – that the less we know someone, the less comfortable we are to be touched by them. However, there was one noticeable exception.

Men, it seems, have no areas which would be completely off limits to a touch from a total stranger – as long as the stranger is a woman.

This is amusing, but also no surprise.

How often do you see men hugging each other?

I am an occasional man hugger – like when we have just got to the summit of Mt Kilimanjaro, or when NZ wins the rugby world cup.  Or maybe if someone has died!

In general the closer the relationship, the fewer areas of the body that were taboo, although people tended to be uncomfortable about letting anyone except their nearest and dearest touch their erogenous zones.

This meant that while a woman might be happy for her uncle to stroke her back, her front would be off limits. And male strangers should note that almost all parts of the female body are to be avoided, other than the hands.

Interestingly, the men studied had a different viewpoint.

They didn’t want another man touching them, with even the head and the feet no-go zones.

However, almost the entire male body was up for grabs to a female stranger or acquaintance, with no part considered taboo.

In fact, for men, a woman they barely know has similar “touching rights” to a parent and more than a brother or sister, the journal Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences reports. Although the reason for this is not clear, the study did find that the more pleasurable a touch was believed to be, the larger the body area that person was allowed access to.

I could take a wild guess at the reason!

The Herald reports:

Dirty Politics author Nicky Hager may face criminal charges over accepting the hacked material used to write the bombshell book, according to documents obtained by the Herald.

Police will not say whether the investigative journalist is again a suspect, instead of simply a witness, after a pivotal Supreme Court decision which ruled computer files were property.

Documents show the new definition from the court puts Hager back in the frame over the computer files he was given by a hacker which he used as the basis for his book.

If computer files are not deemed property by the Supreme Court, then yes Hager could be in trouble.

Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said the Supreme Court decision was focused on one small part of the Crimes Act. But he said the logic behind the court’s decision would likely “follow through” to the way the courts handled other parts of the law – including receiving stolen goods.

“Rawshark will have obtained property in breach of [the law]. If Rawshark obtained property it’s hard to see those files are not still property when they get passed on to Mr Hager.”

This will be very interesting. Personally I’m in favour of people being discouraged from hacking computers and planting spies in offices. The only illegal activity uncovered in the book, was the actual hacking used that the book was based on.

The Herald editorial:

The Auckland Council intends to hold a debate and a vote on Thursday on whether to oppose exploratory oil drilling in an area of seabed off the west coast. Is this really part of its job? Not so long ago, the same council spent quite some time debating the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. What does the council think it is doing?

Aucklanders, like the rest of New Zealand, elect a Parliament to debate issues of national interest and a government to make decisions on these issues. The Government receives information and advice from an apolitical public service maintained at public expense. Aucklanders who did not vote for one of the parties in power have their views well represented by a range of other parties in Parliament. MPs are well paid to keep themselves briefed on matters of national importance and to subject Government decisions to critical scrutiny, which they do with a vengeance. So why do any Auckland Council members imagine we need their expertise in these matters, or their political opinions on them?

Exactly.

Stuff reports:

A “high number” of Kiwis are turned-off by our national sport but are too afraid to voice their opinion, according to an Auckland professor.

Auckland university associate professor Toni Bruce has been researching people’s attitudes towards the Rugby World Cup, based on similar surveys conducted during 2007 and 2011 tournaments.

The sport sociologist says a “silent majority” of New Zealanders are so far not enamoured with the tournament, having received responses from 232 people. The age of participants ranged from 20 to 80, with an almost spread between categories.

A survey of 232 people is very small. It has a 6.5% margin of error if it is a random sample.

Bruce said there are limitations to the survey, despite it receiving a “range of responses”. For example, those who are not interested in rugby are more likely to submit because they feel it’s a “safe place” to share their opposition. The gender difference is also weighted more towards women. 

Sounds like it was a self-selecting survey, which is basically worthless.

UMR did a scientific poll in 2011 about what news stories people followed. 83% of NZers said they closely followed the story of the All Blacks winning the Rugby World Cup.

It seems to have been fashionable for some to declare they don’t like rugby and don’t care about the world cup. And of course not all sports appeal to everyone, but as I say it seems to be fashionable in some circles to declare your lack of interest.

I don’t follow hockey closely. But if the Black Sticks are in with a chance to win the world cup, I start following them more closely and will watch them play. I follow the Silver Ferns closely and watch their games when I can. It is not a choice of supporting rugby or other sports – you can do both.

UPDATE: The survey is here, and is obviously a self-selecting survey. This means any quantitative data (ie more people are turned off rugby) is pretty useless, even though there can be useful qualitative data (why some people are turned off)

Stuff reports:

The flag debate is driving a wedge within the RSA.

The organisation has so far been a staunch campaigner for keeping the current New Zealand flag – but now some members think it’s gone too far.

The RSA has made submissions to the select committee, started a campaign called ‘Fight for our Flag’ and, after the alternate flag choices were revealed, encouraged members to boycott the first referendum by writing ‘we support the current flag’ on the ballot.

Now an uprising within the troops are calling for the RSA to abandon the campaign, which has already been allotted $20,000 of its budget.

Devonport RSA president Chris Mullane sent a letter to the National RSA last Thursday, articulating its members’ concerns about the campaign, telling them it “smacks of sour grapes” and demanding it be abandoned at the National RSA’s meeting next week.

Almost all of Devonport RSA’s 180 members had voted against the campaign at their latest meeting, he said.

Mullane said it wasn’t about him trying to force a flag change, although he would vote for a change.

He said the reason the members were upset was the the RSA was encouraging people to “play around with the democratic process”.

This is where the RSA has gone wrong. No one begrudges them campaigning for the status quo on the second referendum. But actively campaigning for people to spoil their ballots at the first referendum is not something that sits well with many of their members.

Isaac Morehouse writes:

In the 1980’s if I told you for only a few hundred dollars anyone could have a $1 million asset in their pocket you’d call me crazy. But here we are.

The chart above (actually a picture of a chart taken with my iPhone and uploaded to this blog with an app to further emphasize the point) is from the book Bold: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler. It illustrates why I think worry about and policy efforts aimed at changing differences in income between rich and poor are dumb, destructive, and miss the point by being stuck in a dead paradigm.

The above chart only scratches the surface. It’s hard to comprehend just how much wealth (not income) we have today compared to 20, 30, or 50 years ago, let alone a century or two ago. Anyone who complains that income gaps are growing misses the miracle under their nose of wealth exploding, and more accessible to individuals at any income level than ever before in human history.

A good point.

50 years ago, it could take a hefty sum to launch and run a basic advocacy organization, for example. You would need a secretary, long-distance phone line, office space, filing cabinets, a travel agent, a print shop that you’d have to visit to approve runs of literature (at least several thousand at a time), space to store them, shipping cost, etc. ad nauseum.

Today you can setup a WordPress website, bid out for design work on Fiverr or 99 Designs, get VistaPrint to run a few hundred after proofing a digital copy, book your own travel, store your own files, run email campaigns with MailChimp, etc. ad nauseum for a few hundred bucks.

Anyone can write and record songs, publish books, start businesses, sell goods and services, learn anything in the world, or meet people across the globe for free or close to it with a phone and some WiFi. These things are equally accessible to rich and poor. Wealth – as measured in opportunities and fulfilled desires, the real end of money – is greater than ever and flatter than ever.

The focus should be more on opportunities, than who has how much money in the bank.

Stuff reports:

It’s official: Bacon, ham, hot dogs and other processed meats can lead to colon, stomach and other cancers – and red meat is probably cancer-causing, too.

While doctors in rich countries have long warned against eating too much meat, the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency gave the most definitive response yet Monday about its relation to cancer – and put processed meats in the same danger category as smoking or asbestos.

The same category, but not the same risk.

The cancer agency noted research by the Global Burden of Disease Project suggesting that 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are linked to diets heavy in processed meat – compared with one million deaths a year linked to smoking, 600,000 a year to alcohol consumption and 200,000 a year to air pollution.

So what is the risk at an individual level?

The agency said it did not have enough data to define how much processed meat is too dangerous, but said the risk grows with the amount consumed. Analysis of 10 of the studies suggested that a 50-gram portion of processed meat daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer over a lifetime by about 18 percent.

The lifetime risk of colorectal cancer is 4.5%, so an 18% increased risk is an extra 0.8% risk.

So if you eliminate processed meats from your diet you are 0.8% less likely to get colorectal cancer. People can decide for themselves if going without processed meats for several decades is worth reducing your colorectal cancer risk by 0.8%.

The Wellington Chamber of Commerce states:

Wellington Chamber of Commerce is calling on the Wellington City Council to drop its flawed Living Wage proposal after its own legal advice said the changes would not be within the law.

The council’s own advice says “the Council is at risk of being found to have acted outside of the purpose of local government as set out by sections 10 and 11 of Local Government Act” and that the changes would be unlawful because “the increased cost that arises as a consequence of the living wage should allow for a corresponding increase in the quality or effectiveness of the particular service being provided.”

Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive John Milford says the council must take heed of its own legal advice.

“The Chamber has said from the start that the council’s pursuit of the Living Wage is an ideologically driven decision. The council has a duty to ratepayers to deliver services in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. This is their clear legal obligation under the Local Government Act.

If the Council doesn’t change its policy, then maybe the issue should be tested in court?

“The council’s own paper notes that for just the one security contract alone ‘requiring a living wage to be paid would create a significant cost to the Council. The increase is estimated to be more than $2.4 million across the life of the contract of seven years …and the cost to the Council is likely to be approximately a 19% increase on the total contract price.’

“Council needs to stop playing feel-good games with ratepayer funds and focus on the things that will actually deliver more jobs and opportunities for Wellington.

You have Councillors forcing ratepayers to pay a so called living wage, yet refusing to do so in their own business.

Plus it is daft to outsource your wages policy to an Anglican priest living in the Hutt. They’ve basically said they will pay their staff whatever he tells them they should pay! And even when he changes the methodology, they still go along!

“The decision to force third-party contractors to implement the so-called Living Wage or face losing the council’s business is most concerning. That not only puts Wellington jobs and businesses at risk, it goes well beyond the council’s authority.

“The Living Wage’s methodology has repeatedly been shown as flawed.

“Wage increases should be about performance and productivity. This is not what the Living Wage is based on. Real wage increases cannot be created by the stroke of a pen.

Yep.

For those interested:

From Lilburn to Lorde

New Zealand historian and popular music commentator, Chris Bourke, will take on the intellectual legacy of our most prolific and recorded composer, Douglas Lilburn in the 2015 Lilburn Lecture.

When Lilburn died in 2001 he left a legacy of music – and writing about music. He believed it was necessary that New Zealand have a music of its own, “that would satisfy us in ways that cannot be satisfied by the music of other nations.”

Bourke, the 2015 Lilburn Research Fellow at the Alexander Turnbull Library, won the New Zealand Post Book of the Year prize in 2011 for Blue Smoke: the Lost Dawn of New Zealand Popular Music, 1918-1964. He also wrote the biography Crowded House: Something So Strong (1997).

In this year’s lecture, which marks 100 years since Lilburn’s birth, Bourke will ask if popular music has met the composer’s challenge that New Zealand needs a music of its own.

Date and Time:
4th November 2015, 6.00pm

Location:
Te Ahumairangi (ground floor), National Library of New Zealand, Corner Molesworth & Aitken Streets, Wellington

 Cost:
FREE

 RSVP:
[email protected] (for catering purposes)

Paula Wine blogs:

Starting a new school means creating everything from the ground up…there is a vacuum that needs to be filled with systems, structures, curriculum, timetables, and so on.  This is both an exciting opportunity and a challenge.  It certainly forces us to clarify our thinking about everything to do with teaching and learning, because decisions need to be made.  

I reckon it would be great to be a principal and/or deputies in a new school, as you do get to create everything the way you want it, rather than just inherit it.

So what rules will we have?  We’ve all come from schools where there have been a range of rules…no cell phones, no nail polish, only regulation hair tie colour, no jewellery, no climbing trees, no skate boards or scooters past the gates, no running, no talking, no hair down, no long hair, no hair colour, no make up, no no no.  There are other rules too…students must underline in red in one class, then underline in green in the next.  A margin must be ruled for this teacher, but not for that one.  I’ve seen schools where kids need to walk single file from one building to the next, with their hands linked behind their back, completely silent.  Yet another school where kids are not allowed to clap at assembly (spontaneously) until the principal instructs them to do so.  I’ve seen assemblies where kids have to sit with straight backs and arms folded for 50 minutes.  Really? 

My question is why?  Why is there a rule that no nail polish is allowed at school?  If this is a rule in your school, I’m not judging, I just need to know, how does nail polish affect learning?  Why does nail polish matter?  And why can’t kids clap spontaneously when they feel like it?  Why does hair colour matter?  Why not climb trees?  Why do we dictate which colour a child uses to write the date?  

I understand we need some rules to keep everyone safe and for learning to take place.  I’m just posing the question ‘why?’ to many of the rules we have traditionally had, and possibly under an outdated model of schooling.  Possibly the answer is that rules are part of life, that in the workplace it’s not ‘anything goes’, that discipline is good for kids?  I don’t know, I’m just guessing really.

I think both Governments and schools should ask “Why do we have this rule” and “Is it necessary”. Some are of course, but common sense can go a long way.

One thing I do know, and this goes for students and teachers, is that as soon as you start micro-managing people with rules, they stop thinking for themselves. They become compliant or they take their genius somewhere else. Enforced mediocracy eliminates all of the colour, and we are left with grey.  

Of course structure is needed – this gives people a sense of security, but let there be freedom and flexibility within the structure to be, to grow, to take risks, to fail, and possibly to soar.

Success means little without the risk of failure.

I have noticed that when there is a problem in the play ground, and if it becomes a bother, an inconvenience for busy teachers, there can be a knee-jerk reaction to create more rules.  Yes, this will make things easier in the short term, but what a wasted opportunity.  I know in many schools, for example, there have been kids fighting over the collectable supermarket cards and toys.  I understand the appeal of banning them, but isn’t that a great learning opportunity for our kids?  Will there be elevated emotions?  Probably.  Will there be frustration, tears?  Possibly.  But isn’t this a chance to develop our New Zealand Curriculum key competencies…getting along with others, problem solving, conflict resolution, compromising, negotiating, sharing, caring, showing respect for others, communicating effectively, etc. In Barry Schwartz’s TED Talk ‘Our Loss of Wisdom’ he emphasises this: ‘What happens when we turn increasingly to rules…moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules that deprives us of the opportunity to improvise and learn.’   

Banning the cards is the easy way out, and the wrong way.

I’ve always got a kick out of self-managing or toi mana whakahaere; don’t get me wrong, I’m all for kids developing self-managing, but what tickles me is the various  (mis) perceptions of what self-management means.  Self-managing is not about sitting up straight, being quiet, being compliant. Self-managing is about our kids actively thinking for themselves, making decisions, and dealing with the consequences.  It’s about ‘managing self’.  Sadly many of our students learn to ‘play the game’ and as Hattie (2012) describes it, they learn to be ‘…physically present, passively engaged, but psychologically absent.’ That is (in my opinion) tragic.  But if we are so controlling with our rules, when do kids ever get the chance to make decisions or learn how to manage themselves?  

A great quote from Hattie. The great teachers make sure the kids are actively and psychologically engaged.

If you want to take it even further, watch the televised No Rules School about Swanson School, a school in South Auckland that has eliminated all rules at play time.  Principal Bruce McLaughlin talks about helicopter parenting, how wrapping kids in cotton wool is taking away a lot of learning opportunities for kids.  The school has introduced risky, unmanaged play because risk is good for young brain development; the prefrontal cortex bit of the brain that manages risk and controls emotion develops when you expose it to risk and emotions; the argument is that kids need this stimulus to develop, and it is better to allow for managed risk now at 8 up a tree rather than at 18 in a bar.  Some may find this too extreme, and I agree I too feel a bit nervous about the risk, but there is something to letting kids work stuff out for themselves.  There is also something to minimising control and letting kids just get on with it and play!

I wonder how long Swanson has been doing this, and how it has worked out?

Last week we visited Matapihi Kindergarten in Te Mata…hands down the highlight of my week.  While I was struck by the emphasis on beauty, the abundance of natural and recycled materials, and all the available items for self-initiated play. There was an abundance of active play and exploration of their natural environment.  It was so cool!  But,what I really noticed was the absence of teacher intervention. Although we didn’t discuss ‘the rules’ at Matapihi, it was obvious that these children were given the opportunity to sort stuff out for themselves, and ask for help when they needed it.  They were allowed to be faced with challenges (inclement weather, risky games, asking for help, negotiating game rules and problem solving) and deal with the outcome.  We smiled as we watched two boys negotiate their way down a muddy hill on a recycled skate board (wheels removed), falling, laughing, tumbling their way down, deciding it was too dangerous, and modifying their game accordingly.  No teachers intervened.  No one said ‘no’.  No one said ‘don’t get dirty’ or ‘don’t do that’, ‘you’ll get hurt’.  It was seriously cool.  It just felt like an environment that promotes the peaceful expression of each little learner as a developing individual.  It felt like their uniqueness, their specialness, was being honoured, celebrated.  It felt like not everyone conforming to same-same.  How refreshing.  And guess what?  Every child was engaged.  Every child was learning.  Every child had their needs met.  Every child was being challenged.  Every child was happy.  

I see a parallel with this and the law allowing bars to open for Rugby World Cup games without special licenses and conditions. The Police, wowser groups and the Greens all predicted awful things. Drunk people rolling out of bars past schools. But you know what, overwhelmingly none of this happened as most people can work out where to draw the lines. And we shouldn’t always make rules for the lowest common denominator.

Roy Morgan have polled Australians on their preferred party leaders. It’s very bad news for Bill Shorten.

ALP supporters say their preferred leader is:

1. Tanya Plibersek 34% (up 2%)
2. Anthony Albanese 21% (up 5%)
3. Wayne Swan 12% (up 3%)
4. Bill Shorten 10% (down 7%).

How long can you last when you’re only the fourth choice of your party’s supporters?

Would be interesting for someone to do a poll in NZ asking the same?

If Turnbull resigned, his preferred successor is:

1. Julie Bishop 46%
2. Scott Morrison 15%

The poll also shows the Coalition 11% ahead of Labor.

Thomas Lumley blogs at Stats Chat:

There has apparently been a leak from the International Agency for Research on Cancer about their forthcoming assessment of meat. It’s just in the UK papers so far, but I expect it will spread. Here’s an example, from the Telegraph

“Bacon, ham and sausages ‘as big a cancer threat as smoking’, WHO to warn
The WHO is expected to publish a report listing processed meat as a cancer-causing substance with the highest of five possible rankings”

Presumably what they mean is that IARC is going to classify processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen. The story is playing on a common misunderstanding of the IARC hazard grades for carcinogenicity.

As I’ve written before, the IARC hazard grades aren’t about the magnitude of the threat. A Group 1 carcinogen is an agent whose ability ability to cause or promote cancer is well established.

So the Telegraph has it entirely wrong. Hopefully the media here will not fall into this trap.

If the leak is correct, processed meats will be joining alcohol, plutonium, sunlight, tobacco, birth-control pills, and Chinese-style salted fish in Group 1. These aren’t all an equal threat, but the IARC scientists believe all of them are able to cause cancer at the right dose.

Kate McMillan writes at NZ Herald:

New Zealand is uniquely liberal in giving the right to vote in national elections to permanent residents after one year’s residence.

But we shouldn’t be too surprised or worried if not all eligible migrants exercise this right immediately. What we should be worried about is if they, and their children, do not ever develop the voting habit.

With the overseas-born making up more than 25 per cent of New Zealand’s population, low levels of electoral participation among immigrants and their descendants will not be good for our electoral democracy.

I wonder if low levels of participation occur because migrants gain the right to vote with no effort on their part. As Kate says, most countries require you to have lived far longer in a country or be a citizen.

Eligibility in different countries is:

• Australia: citizens
• Canada: citizens
• UK: citizen of UK or citizen of Commonwealth country and resident
• US: citizens
• Germany: citizens
• France: citizens

The reason I back an eligibility change to citizens is two-fold:

1. It would give residents an incentive to become citizens, and I think encouraging citizenship is important. We are one of very few countries that have few legal distinctions between a resident and a citizen. We should have more to encourage people living here to become NZ citizens
2. If you are forced to enrol once you have been living here for a year, you are less likely to actually vote as you are not fully engaged in NZ. You may not have decided yet whether you plan to remain here. And hence you start off with a pattern of non voting. If however you only get the vote once you commit to New Zealand, then I think you are far more likely to use it, and keep using it.